-
appellant challenges the district court's rejection of his counterclaim. See Consol. Generator-Neu., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co.,
114 Nev. 1304, 1312,
971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (recognizing that a party may challenge interlocutory orders entered before a final judgment in an appeal from the final judgment). Turning to the merits of appellant's challenge to the rejection of his counterclaims, having considered appellant's civil proper person appeal statement and the record on appeal, we affirm the district court's denial of his motion to submit a counterclaim, as appellant's proposed counterclaim failed to state a cognizable claim against respondent. 1 Cf. Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. „
302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas,
124 Nev. 224, 228,
181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief). It is so ORDERED. J. 1S4ekr Parraguirre . 'Although the district court denied appellant's motion to submit a counterclaim on the ground that no such motion was available to appellant, we may affirm the district court's order if it reached the correct result, albeit for a different reason. See Butler ex rel. Biller v. Bayer,
123 Nev. 450, 460 n.22,
168 P.3d 1055, 1063 n.22 (2007). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge John Michael Foster Steven J. Klearman & Associates Carson City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A me
Document Info
Docket Number: 63893
Filed Date: 4/11/2014
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021